| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Additional LWLOCK_STATS statistics |
| Date: | 2015-12-22 06:15:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ-yzSiSgV4Qt89qaEuVSVNzHUVjGg3eF84aZ7ra76vRA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Jesper Pedersen
<jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 01:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> Is this just for informational purposes, or is this something you are
>> looking to have committed? I originally thought the former, but now
>> I'm wondering if I misinterpreted your intent. I have a hard time
>> getting excited about committing something that would, unless I'm
>> missing something, pretty drastically increase the overhead of running
>> with LWLOCK_STATS...
>>
>
> Yeah, so unless other people using LWLOCK_STATS find the additional
> information of use (w/ the extra overhead), I think we can mark it as
> "Returned with feedback" or "Rejected".
Marked as rejected for this CF then, log overhead is not something to
ignore. There has been a fair amount of infrastructure work done btw
thanks to your impulse.
> Alternative, I can redo the patch requiring an additional #define - f.ex.
> LWLOCK_STATS_QUEUE_SIZES
Feel free to do so if you wish, that may be interesting to see what this gives.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-22 06:16:59 | Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-22 06:12:47 | Commit fest status for 2015-11 |